People vs. Richards and another. satisfaction under his execution at law; but he is not entitled to that assistance until he places himself in a position to ask it. It follows that the decree in chancery must be affirmed. Decree affirmed. PEOPLE VS. RICHARDS AND PELTON. An indictment lies for a conspiracy to cheat an individual of real estate, as well as of personal property.1 A conspiracy to commit a felony, when executed, is merged in the felony; but a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is not merged in the misdemeanor.2 In an indictment for a conspiracy, the agreement or combination must be set out, but the means to be used in executing the conspiracy need not be set forth in the indictment, unless they are a component part of the offense, as where the combination and the object to be attained are not in themselves unlawful, but the means to be used, to effect the object, are unlawful. *An indictment for a conspiracy to cheat an individual of his lands [217*] and goods, need not state the means by which it was to be accomplished. In conspiracy, the offense consists in the unlawful agreement, and not in the acts that follow it.4 -1A conspiracy to get possession of land by means of an extorted deed in favor of the lawful owner, held criminal in State . Shoober, 8 Rich (S. C.), 72. -Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is not merged in its commission, State v. Murray, 15 Me. 100; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 265; Commonwealth v. Delaney, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 224. But a conspiracy to commit a higher offense merges in the crime if committed, State v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218. -The means to be employed need not be set out in the indictment, Johnson v. People, 22 Ill. 314. But it must appear on the face of the indictment that either the object or the means are criminal, State v. Jones, 13 Iowa, 269; State v. Bartlett, 30 Me. 132; State v. Ripley, 31 id. 386; Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414; People v. Clark, 10 id. 310; State v. Burnham, 15 N. H. 394; State v. Noyes, 25 Vt. 415. Not necessarily a crime to defraud one of his money, goods or estate by cheating, and where it is not, criminal means must be alleged, or indictment falls, Commonwealth o. Hunt, 4 Met. (Mass.) 111; State v. Mayberry 48 Me. 218. -That offense consists in unlawful agreement, and not in the acts which follow it. See, also, People v. Clark, 10 Mich. 310; Alderman v. People 4 id. 14. People vs. Richards and another. CASE reserved from Hillsdale Circuit Court. Indictment for a conspiracy. The defendants were tried and convicted in the circuit court, and the questions reserved were as to the sufficiency of the indictment, which contained three counts. The first count charged that defendants, on the tenth day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-three, with force and arms, at Somerset, in the county of Hillsdale, unlawfully and wickedly did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together to cheat and defraud Laton Hoxie of his lands and tenements, and of his moneys, goods and chattels, he, the said Laton Hoxie, being a man of weak mind and intellect; and that they, the said William P. Richards and Nathan Pelton, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, combination and agreement so as aforesaid entered into by them then and there, to wit, on the said tenth day of November, at Somerset, aforesaid, did falsely pretend that one Thomas Farmer was about to institute a criminal prosecution against him, the said Laton Hoxie, upon a charge that he, the said Laton Hoxie had attempted to commit a rape upon the body of one Sophronia Farmer; and did then and there represent to and persuade him, the said Laton Hoxie, that by the testimony of the said Sophronia Farmer he would be convicted of such offense, and imprisoned in the state prison of this state for a long period of time, to wit, for twenty years, and that he must leave the state of Michigan; and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement, pursuade and induce him, the said Laton Hoxie, to execute and deliver to the said William P. Richards a deed, whereby was conveyed to said Richards and his heirs a certain piece or parcel of land situate in said county of Hillsdale, containing many acres, to wit, one hundred and twenty acres, of great value, to wit, of the value of two thousand dollars, of the property of him, the said Laton Hoxie, without paying to him, the said Laton Hoxie any valuable consideration therefor; and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, persuade and induce him, the said Laton Hoxie to execute and deliver to the People vs. Richards and another. said Nathan Pelton a power of attorney, constituting the said Nathan Pelton his attorney, to collect and receive all debts due and owing to the said Laton Hoxie, there [218*] being then due and owing to the said Laton Hoxie many debts, amounting in all to a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of five hundred dollars; and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement, persuade and induce the said Laton Hoxie to part with and deliver up possession to the said Nathan Pelton of the said lands and premises, together with divers articles of personal property of great value, to wit, of the value of five hundred. dollars, of and belonging to him, the said Laton Hoxie, without paying him, the said Laton Hoxie, any consideration whatever therefor, and with the intent to cheat and defraud him, the said Laton Hoxie, of his lands, goods, money and chattels, etc. The second count stated that defendants afterwards, to wit, on the said tenth day of November, in the year aforesaid, with force and arms, at Somerset aforesaid, unlawfully, fraudulently and deceitfully did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together to cheat and defraud the said Laton Hoxie of his lands, tenements, goods and chattels; and that the said William P. Richards and Nathan Pelton, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement so as aforesaid entered into by them, then and there did falsely pretend that one Thomas Farmer would prosecute him, the said Laton Hoxie, upon a charge that he, the said Laton Hoxie had attempted to force, abuse and commit a rape upon an infant daughter of the said Thomas Farmer, and cause him, the said Laton Hoxie, to suspect and believe that he, the said Thomas Farmer, would prosecute him, the said Laton Hoxie, upon said pretended charge, he, the said Laton Hoxie, being a man of weak mind and intellect; and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement, represent to and persuade him, the said Laton Hoxie, that upon the testimony of the said infant daughter of said Thomas Farmer, he would be convicted of said offense (they, the said People vs. Richards and another. William P. Richards and Nathan Pelton, well knowing that the said Thomas Farmer would not prosecute the said Laton Hoxie on said pretended charge); and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement, persuade and induce him, the said Laton Hoxie, to part with, convey and deliver to them, the said William P. Richards and Nathan Pelton, his lands, tenements, goods and chattels, with out receiving therefor any valuable consideration, the said lands, tenements, goods and chattels being of great [219*] value, to wit, of the *value of three thousand dollars; and did then and there, in pursuance of said conspiracy, combination and agreement, obtain from and receive of him, the said Laton Hoxie, his lands, tenements, goods and chattels without paying him therefor any valuable consideration, with the intent and for the purpose of cheating and defrauding him, the said Laton Hoxie, of his lands, goods and chattels, to the great damage, etc. The third count was as follows: And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that the said William P. Richards and Nathan Pelton afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, with force and arms, at Somerset aforesaid, unlawfully, fraudulently and deceitfully, did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together to cheat and defraud the said Laton Hoxie of his lands, tenements, goods and chattels, to the great damage of the said Laton Hoxie, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Michigan. Howell, for the people. Backus, for defendants. By the Court, WING, J. The counsel for the defendants insists that cases of indictable conspiracies at common law are classed under two heads; either there must be a charge of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, or to commit an act not criminal by criminal means. That in the one case the offense is to be determined by the nature of the object, in the other by the nature of the means. People vs. Richards and another. This question was elaborately argued by senators Spencer and Stebbins, the first giving the judgment of the majority, and the latter of the minority of the court of errors in New York, in the case of The People v. Lambert, 9 Cow. 578. The charge set forth in the indictment in that case was in substance, that the defendants conspired, by wrongful and unjust means, to cheat the Sun Fire Insurance Company and other persons of their goods aud chattels; and that in the execution of said conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, and by certain indirect and undue means, did cheat and defraud the said company of their goods, chattels and effects-describing them—and thereby impoverished and injured the company, etc. *The supreme court sustained the indictment, but [220*] their judgment was reversed by the court of errors. There were many points made and decided in that case, some of which are raised in this case. Upon a careful examination of the arguments of the court and the senators, we are constrained to adopt the views of the supreme court and the minority of the senate, as being sustained by the common law decisions. In Arch. Crim. Pl. 507, the author says a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons: 1. Falsely to charge another with a crime punishable by law either from a malicions or vindictive motive or feeling towards the party, or for the purpose of extorting money from him. 2. Wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person or any body of men in any other manner. 3. To commit an offense punishable by law. 4. To do an act with an intent to pervert the course of justice, etc. 3 Chit. Crim. L. 1139; 1 Hawk. P. C. b. 1, ch. 72, sec. 2, support the same doctrine. In the second class we have an authority for an indictment for a conspiracy to cheat an individual. See 7 Am. Jurist, 445. It is said, however, that an indictment will not lie for a conspiracy to commit any mere civil trespass. Arch. Crim. Pl. 507. Mr. Chitty, at the page cited above, says, "there are perhaps few things left so doubtful in the criminal law as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object |